Key Points

• This article will not discuss abortions deemed medically necessary where the life of the mother or fetus is at risk.
• Situations involving rape, incest, and other urgent circumstances will be treated in separate sections rather than being integrated within broader arguments.
• Structure: Each section will begin with a pro-life claim followed by one or more pro-choice objections and their respective responses. This format is designed for clarity and organization, serving as a survey of various arguments without advocating for either side.

Content Overview

1. Is a Fetus Human Life?
2. Personhood & Moral Status
3. Is Abortion Morally Permissible?
4. Legal & Ethical Arguments
5. Religious Perspectives
6. Social Media Arguments

Objections to the Standard Argument

Claim: The standard argument indicates that abortion should be prohibited.

1. Inconsistent View on Death
   • Objection: Premise 1 is inaccurate; killing human beings is sometimes justified (e.g., self-defense, capital punishment, war).
   • Response: Society differentiates between justified killing and murder. Certain situations permit killing without legal or moral repercussions, but concepts like self-defense do not apply straightforwardly to a fetus.

The argument can be reformulated as follows: 1. The killing of innocent human life is not allowed. 2. A fetus is an innocent human life. 3. Therefore, the killing of fetuses is not allowed.

• Counter: This principle might overlook circumstances where ending an innocent life may be ethically acceptable, such as in cases of euthanasia.

2. "Potential" Life
   • This popular counter to the pro-life assertion of "child murder" posits that a fetus is not yet a human being but a non-living entity (often referred to as a "bundle of cells") in the process of development.
   • Objection: Premise 2 is untrue; a fetus is merely a "potential" human life, not an actual existing human life.
   • Response 1: The moment of fertilization produces a single-cell zygote with unique DNA, representing the initial stage of human life.
   • Response 2: A living entity must be considered human from the outset; something non-human does not attain humanity through growth or aging.
   • Counter 1: While a zygote may be a human life form, it does not exhibit recognizability as a human being and thus lacks the same protections (see: Personhood).
   • Counter 2: A fetus may be human but isn't considered living until it achieves viability, suggesting that abortions prior to viability do not terminate a life.
3. The Fetus as Part of the Mother’s Body
   • It is possible to believe that a fetus is both a human life and still subject to the mother's bodily autonomy. However, this notion contradicts the pro-life framework that assigns intrinsic value to human life from conception.
   • Argument Structure:
     1. A woman has the moral right to determine what happens to her body.
     2. A fetus is part of the woman's body.
     3. Therefore, a woman has the right to an abortion.
   • Objection: A fetus is not a human life because it is part of the mother's body, similar to removing an appendix.
   • Response 1: Body parts share a genetic code with the host body; a fetus possesses a unique genetic code and distinct body parts. Pregnant women do not have two hearts or two sets of genomes while carrying a male fetus.
   • Response 2: The child can survive independently of the mother, or vice versa, highlighting their distinct identities.
   • Counter 1: Despite having its own genetic code, a fetus remains a part of the mother’s body and thus remains subject to her autonomy (see: Personhood).
   • Counter 2: Conditions such as parasitic infections would lead to the ethical removal of such life forms from the mother’s body. While a fetus consists of human cells, it does not yet qualify as a person, making an abortion comparable to removing a parasite (see: Personhood).
4. "Just a Clump of Cells"
   • Objection: A fetus is merely a collection of cells undergoing chemical reactions.
   • Response: Any organism, including humans, can be described as such; human worth is not determined by complexity.
   • Response 2: Terms like "embryo" or "fetus" refer to specific stages of human development and do not denote non-human entities.
   • Counter: While a fetus shares our genetic makeup, it lacks properties typically associated with human life, such as consciousness and autonomy (see: Personhood).

Conclusion Regarding the Standard Argument

The standard argument, in its current form, proves challenging to counter. To demonstrate that a fetus is not a human life form contradicts medical and biological consensus, rendering the argument often viewed as unscientific. Therefore, the heart of the debate lies not in disproving the standard argument but in asserting its irrelevance. Fetuses may indeed be a form of human life but do not possess human equality or moral standing since they are not recognized as "persons" and thus lack intrinsic rights.

Objections to Fetal Personhood

1. Viability
   • Objection: A fetus is not a person until it can survive outside the womb. Those dependent on the mother for survival do not achieve personhood.
   • Response 1: The point of viability varies significantly and hinges on medical technology. Does a fetus in the U.S. attain personhood at a quicker rate than a fetus in a less medically advanced country?
   • Response 2: Advancements in medical technology could lead to the possibility of fetuses being viable at conception, which would create a strong argument against abortion.
   • Counter: A fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb, even with medical intervention, is not viable and cannot be considered a person entitled to rights. If it cannot survive without the mother's body, it remains under her autonomy.
   • Response: Medical assistance cannot serve as a standard for personhood, as it does not apply to born individuals who depend on medical support (e.g., life support, dialysis). Human infants also cannot survive without the mother's body or medical aid.
2. Legal Status
   • Objection: Legal recognition of personhood begins at birth (e.g., citizenship, taxes, child support). Therefore, a fetus should not be considered a person in other contexts.
   • Response: Birth citizenship does not reflect the worth of human life. Legal acknowledgment is an inadequate standard for determining personhood. An undocumented immigrant may lack legal recognition yet still possess value and human rights.
3. Conscious Awareness
   • Objection: Fetuses lack consciousness, self-awareness, or reasoning abilities, disqualifying them as persons. Similarly, severely disabled adults are not viewed as full "persons" and do not enjoy all rights.
   • Response 1: Even where certain rights are linked to personhood, it remains prohibited to kill disabled individuals. All human life is equal in moral worth, irrespective of limitations or legal status. The right to life extends to all humans.
   • Response 2: Consciousness is not a valid criterion for personhood. Infants do not achieve full consciousness until months after birth, thus allowing for the potentiality of infanticide.
4. Ability to Feel Pain
   • Objection: Abortion is acceptable because a fetus cannot feel pain.
   • Response: Pain alone is not a proper measure of human value, as there are born individuals incapable of feeling pain.
   • Counter: Before a fetus can experience pain, it lacks consciousness or any experiences. Terminating a pregnancy is inconsequential, as it does not inflict harm on anyone or extinguish consciousness.
5. "Brain Birth"
   • While the heartbeat is a focal point, others have introduced the concept of "brain birth" based on the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Just as a brain-dead person is not considered alive, a fetus without brain development is not yet living.
   • Objection: A fetus is not a living person due to the absence of brain function, equating it with a brain-dead individual.
   • Response: The criteria for brain death necessitate "irreversible cessation" of all brain functions, including the brain stem. A fetus shows brain stem activity by seven weeks, which does not fulfill the criteria for death.
6. Properties of Personhood
   • Philosopher Mary Anne Warren outlines characteristics associated with personhood:
     1. Consciousness
     2. Reasoning
     3. Self-motivated activity
     4. Capacity to communicate
     5. Self-awareness
   • Warren argues that since a fetus likely meets only one of these criteria (consciousness) after developing pain receptors, it is not a person.
   • Objection: A fetus is not a person due to insufficient characteristics of personhood.
   • Response: This standard would also exclude comatose patients and infants from the right to life, as they may not exhibit self-awareness or communication.
   • Counter: Reversibly comatose individuals fulfill the criteria since they "retain their unconscious mental states."

The Argument from Uncertainty

Some posit that due to the lack of consensus and clear standards surrounding fetal personhood, it is reckless to continue allowing abortions, as we run the risk of ending another's life.

Claim: If uncertainty exists regarding when human life begins, we should prioritize preserving human life. - Objection 1: The possibility of being mistaken in accepting specific arguments does not necessitate that we assume those arguments to be incorrect or act contrary to them. - Objection 2: If this reasoning were valid, it would extend to plants and animals since there is some uncertainty about their rights to life. - Response: Medical and scientific consensus indicates that life begins at conception. We should not risk violating human rights or committing acts of murder on such a grand scale based on subjective and shifting standards of personhood.

Mentally or Physically Disabled Fetuses

Objection: It is permissible to terminate pregnancies involving mentally or physically disabled fetuses or those with chronic illnesses, as their lives may be short and filled with suffering. - Response: If a fetus is recognized as a person, disability does not justify termination, just as we do not euthanize adults with disabilities. If a fetus is not a person, then its disabilities are moot since it could be aborted regardless (see: Personhood).

Rape, Incest & Exigent Circumstances

Many arguments can be modified by introducing the question of rape. A common pro-life response highlights the low incidence of abortions resulting from rape or incest. However, these figures may be misleading given the high overall number of abortions and the fact that many rapes go unreported. Regardless of statistics, cases of rape, incest, and other urgent circumstances warrant careful consideration.

Unfortunately, discussions surrounding rape are often employed as red herrings within broader arguments rather than being treated as a distinct category. The typical exchange unfolds as follows:

Pro-Life: I oppose abortion because... Pro-Choice: That argument fails because it does not account for rape. Pro-Life: Do you support restricting abortions for cases not involving rape? Pro-Choice: No, all women should have the freedom to choose. Pro-Life: Then the argument is not about rape; the majority of abortions still require justification.

Most pro-life and pro-choice advocates agree that some scenarios warrant abortion. Many pro-life supporters accept that rape and incest provide sufficient grounds for permitting abortion, and it appears that most life-oriented states will uphold this exception post-Roe v. Wade. Conversely, certain less flexible views exist. Even if a pro-choice advocate falls into the "it's not about rape" trap, these situations may still be leveraged to justify the right to choose overall, although such claims are often criticized for relying on emotional appeal, as they attempt to apply a limited number of sensitive cases to a broader phenomenon.

Claim: Rape and incest do not justify abortion due to their minimal occurrence. - Objection: Abortion is essential when desired in instances of rape and incest; thus, restrictions should not apply, as they impact these vulnerable groups and lead to more unwanted children and teenage pregnancies. Many rape cases remain unreported, and restricting abortion could force victims to carry pregnancies to term.

Response 1: "Two wrongs": Abortion does not erase the trauma of rape; it may even exacerbate the victim's pain. Response 2: Punishing a child for the actions of their parents is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Conclusion Regarding Rape The solution to the dilemma surrounding rape and other urgent circumstances in justifying abortion returns to the discussion of personhood and moral value. This dilemma is succinctly encapsulated by Stanford Students for Life:

"Consider a scenario where a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. If she decides to carry the child to term or cannot obtain an abortion, she may raise the child for seven years. Eventually, she finds the child a painful reminder of her trauma and suffocates him—this would be unacceptable. If a fetus is as much a person as a seven-year-old, then the same logic applies. The crucial question is not about the circumstances of conception, but whether the fetus should be regarded as a person."

Unequal Rights

The violinist argument has gained traction, with various adaptations and implications. The core reasoning holds that: A) A fetus does not have more rights than the mother. B) A fetus does not lose rights upon birth. C) A fetus is entitled to use the mother's body for its needs.

If A, B, and C are all true, the pro-life stance contains inherent inconsistencies.

Objection: If all beings, including a fetus, have equal rights, then none can use another's body without consent for survival. Response: Consent cannot be revoked retroactively. The act of becoming pregnant is consensual, and both the mother and fetus share the right to life; only the means of sustaining that life differ. Only the pro-choice perspective reveals inconsistencies regarding rights, as the mother claims the right to terminate another's life.

Objection 2: One can choose to donate a kidney and retract consent prior to surgery. Pregnancy should be viewed similarly, where the fetus is not an independent entity until birth and is fully subject to the mother's bodily autonomy. Response 2: Revoking consent to pregnancy post-fertilization parallels changing one's mind about kidney donation after the fact; it infringes upon another's body without consent.

This argument returns to the issue of personhood.

Human Rights

Objection: Reproductive freedom is a fundamental right; forced pregnancy constitutes a violation of human rights. Response: Women possess reproductive rights in controlling sexual activity, deciding when to start families, and utilizing contraception. If a fetus qualifies as a human life form, it transcends the issue of bodily autonomy.

Counter: Although a fetus possesses its own body, it remains reliant on the mother’s autonomy and right to choose for survival (see: Violinist).

The Right to Privacy

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. — US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1

Objection: As established in Roe v. Wade, abortion is protected under the constitutional right to privacy, aligning with the fourteenth amendment’s personal liberties. Response: The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Abortion protections were neither intended nor included in the Constitution's original meanings. The initial Roe v. Wade decision is flawed and has been overturned.

Counter: We cannot be bound by an ancient document that no longer aligns with societal standards. The Constitution was designed for interpretation and amendment to meet contemporary needs.

Abortion & Slavery

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. — US Constitution, 13th Amendment.

Objection: Prohibiting abortion would violate the 13th amendment’s abolition of slavery by forcing women into 18 years of involuntary servitude. —Suggested by Bill Myers. Response 1: Consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively. Women voluntarily engage in actions that may lead to pregnancy (see: Rape). When boarding a plane, one acknowledges the possibility of turbulence or delays. Airlines aren't liable for turning back due to a passenger's change of heart. Regret does not transform a flight into kidnapping, nor does it equate pregnancy with slavery.

Response 2: Birth naturally follows pregnancy; it is not a forced act imposed on a woman, similar to how adolescence isn't forced upon a mother if she cannot terminate her toddler.

Counter: Prohibiting abortion or enforcing birth serves as a "badge and incident" of slavery, also prohibited by the 13th amendment. Response: Forced pregnancy is a badge and incident of slavery, as the offspring of slaves were treated as property. The doctrine of badges and incidents applies specifically to slaves and their descendants.

Objection: Restricting abortions will not reduce their frequency; it will only drive women toward unsafe, illegal alternatives. Response: The inevitability of an action does not justify a lack of legal consequences. This rationale could not apply to other offenses (e.g., murder, robbery). Furthermore, laws can educate and guide people against certain behaviors.

Counter: Prohibition will not solve behavioral issues. Banning abortion will lead to crime and societal instability, akin to alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs.

Abortion Prevents Overpopulation

Objection: Abortion helps address the overpopulation crisis. Limiting access to abortion will harm the environment, society, and global health. Response 1: The world is not overpopulated; the current birthrate in the U.S. is below the replacement level. Additionally, historical population control measures have often been racist and imperialistic. Response 2: Human life is fundamental to caring for the Earth and ensuring future welfare. It is illogical to harm humans to protect the planet. Response 3: If overpopulation takes precedence over individual human life, we do not know which unborn children could become scientists or leaders capable of addressing overpopulation. Why not terminate those contributing to the issue without offering solutions, such as the disabled or those in extreme poverty, instead of promoting abortion?

(Miscellaneous)

Twitter arguments refer to common retorts that lack credibility and philosophical rigor. Many are based on false dichotomies, emotional appeals, "Whataboutism," and misdirection, including the famous phrase, "If you really thought that, then you would think this."

"Fetuses are Not Insurable" (HOV argument) - Objection: If a fetus were a person, I should be able to take out insurance or qualify for the carpool lane. - Response: Insurance companies and traffic authorities should not determine human worth.

"No Uterus, No Opinion" - Objection: Those wishing to prohibit abortion cannot truly understand the issue because they lack direct experience. Thus, individuals who cannot become pregnant should not express opinions. - Response: Legal and moral considerations apply regardless of gender. One's gender does not preclude understanding morality; this notion implies certain individuals possess lesser capacities based on gender, race, or background.

"Masturbation is Genocide" - Objection: If a fetus is a living entity, then sperm is too; thus, masturbation should be criminalized. - Response: Sperm and eggs are parts of the body without unique DNA and cannot develop into a child until fertilization occurs.

"Mandatory Vasectomies for all Men." - Objection: If rights are equal, then mandatory, reversible vasectomies for men would be a safer alternative to restricting abortion. This targeting of women's reproductive rights is rooted in sexism. - Response: Compulsory surgery to prevent natural bodily processes differs from intentional killing. Mandating vasectomies invokes eugenics and does not align with "pro-choice" arguments for bodily autonomy.

Acorns vs. Oak Trees - Objection: A fetus is not a person, just like an acorn is not an oak tree. - Response: A toddler is not an adult, yet is still a person. Acorns and oak trees belong to the same species; the terms merely describe different developmental stages.

"If You Were Really Pro-life/Pro-Choice…" - Objection: If you genuinely supported life/choice, you would endorse a specific program or policy. - Response 1: "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" have become culturally significant terms to describe one's stance on abortion. Supporters of either position can hold conflicting views on other issues. The terms used to express a collection of views do not necessarily reflect the value or consistency of those views. - Response 2: Holding a specific view on one social issue does not obligate a person to adopt certain beliefs on others.

Did I miss something? Bias or poor wording? Misrepresented argument? Leave a comment and I will update the story where appropriate!